Strengthen the borders

Over the past number of years I have been developing the idea of using Peacekeepers for border security forces.

The security collapse of Libya is the largest contributor of the Mali government being taken over. The loose border around Iraq has made weapons flowing like water across those borders. We have known that the Syrian border has been breached many times as military equipment is carried through. Now we have the further breakdown of the Syrian border as fighting has occurred across the Turkish/Syrian border.

There are also the border issues along the Democratic Republic of Congo. The roads from Eastern Congo that connect with the ports in Kenya and Tanzania are routes are known to be used to transport illegal minerals, weapons and other contraband items. The exact same reality is taking place along the Afghanistan border. Weapons and drugs are crossing these borders.

As the borders become strong the noose can be tightened on the violence. The tightening by security forces can close in on the areas of violence and set up perimeters. This will limit the weapons if not the people fighting from entering.

Now this is not a new tactic of thought, obviously. We have borders and they must be patrolled, they have to be patrolled. We are seeing the results of poor border management in areas of conflict. In reality I have gone through more security checks going across the Canada/RUSA border than I have crossing almost any other border and those two countries are siblings.

Such a tactic will not stop all flow of weapons, militia or contraband items. However it will slow the transfer of such resources that fuel violent conflicts. It is a step towards the dream of ending violent conflict.

As I have mentioned before, the world is insane and such a tactic will not be utilized because it costs too much. That is the reality. No one knows how much each person is worth on an individual basis but when we start talking about entire nations and countries, the price of peace usually is said that it cost too much. Although in reality peace is better for economics than war ever has been or will be, in the long term.

It is a very important matter to understand that phrase, “in the long term”. Peace is very much a long term solution and task, where as war is a very short term solution. The issue of border security is also a long term solution as it can never be left unattended.

There is a great deal on information on this topic if you search Sector Security Reform. Every country knows this and we use this ideology daily. An example is the build up of security measures at airports due to the violence experienced. For some reason such efforts are not used in the most critical of situations, which Syria is dealing with now.

Did Gadhafi provide greater stability in West Africa?

Would a peaceful transfer of power in Libya have provided greater stability in West Africa?

We know that the out flow of weapons from Libya has armed many groups. These groups have used the weapons to bring more instability to many West African countries.  It must be understood that the weapons are not the cause of the unrest. The unrest is already there, yet the flood of weapons have increased the occurrence of violence in the region.

Peace, as does violence begins in the minds of people. When we are dealing with nomadic populations, we must look to the regional stability of peace. We must gather a sense of what the regional impact will when a central figure, such as Gadhafi, is lost.

We have to be cognizant of the power vacuum created and plan to fill that vacuum.  In the past few months we have witnessed (yet have not taken to heart) the need to put peacekeepers on the ground.

Libya is slowly slipping backwards because NATO countries left a power vacuum when they did not put soldiers on the ground. These soldiers did not have to engage in combat but would have been used to ensure the peace. We know that in order to maintain peace you need to put a force on the ground to step between the groups fighting. 

Syria is in the same situation. There is a strong need for intervention. Already there is intervention with the flow of weapons into Syria and the training of opposition soldiers. Why is the international community not using that effort for peaceful means? Instead of purchasing weapons and producing more soldiers which prolongs the violence, use those resources to build a ceasefire agreement and begin the dialogue process.

In the case of Libya, the lack of sector security reform is directly linked to the upheaval in Mali. We have known for decades that the armed forces in Libya were populated by the Tuareg nomadic forces responsible for many conflicts in West Africa.  These forces were not contained or even disarmed. Now we have a peaceful country Mali in upheaval.

The person in charge of the coup in Mali is Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo. He has stated very similar messages that have been spoken by others before him. The similarities are easy to see in comparison with Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, the Guinean junta leader who took power in Guinea during 2008. Guinea is still embroiled in political uncertainty. Mali is facing a similar future.

It is often a difficult situation to speak of peace when you know the current situation is not good but the options indicate a worse situation. At the time of Gadhafi there was little support for his remaining in power. Even if a person did speak of such they were quickly denounced as supporting crimes against humanity. With the evidence today, the spread of violence in West Africa since Gadhafi fell is there. Sadly this is a moment when a person asks, “Is it better now with Libya sliding into civil unrest, armed groups that thrive on instability have more weapons, governments being toppled, and regional peace again is taken a step backwards?”

This is the very question why Syria is of such importance. Taking the current power structure will leave a vacuum only to be replaced by another less stable group. No one is saying that the current power structure is a positive long term solution. Everyone is pointing to the need for change in leadership. The people want to have more opportunities for communication and political involvement. Those that know how difficult peace is to maintain lament the loss of every life. Due to that it is difficult to accept the killing of another to gain power. Unfortunately we live in a world that believes might is right. Even when we speak to the wisdom of open communication, governance for the protection of people and obeying the rule of law, when bullets fly, chaos rules and people die.

The question of greater stability is a speculative question. All we know is that there is an increase of weapons flowing around West African now. As I stated before the unrest was always there, the weapons made it more visible. Gadhafi was a brutal leader no doubt, however a peaceful Libya maintained peace in West Africa. With the unrest in Libya, the weapons were free to anyone that wanted them.

Peace is slipping in Libya

The Libyan armed revolution was to be over when the former leader was killed. However in the past few months there have been reports of growing tribal aggression. We were aware that such a thing was possible. It is a common reality that such events happen. However, the cycle did not have to happen.

The upside is that Libya is not fully engulfed in another civil war –just yet. The reality of civil war is slowly marching to existence though. At this point we have a very disturbing question to ask, “At what cost will peace be made?” The payoff is usually in the form of political power.

I have written about the peaceful transition of power many times. One such topic is Negotiated Governance, this is exactly where Libya rests at the moment. They are negotiating how and who will govern the country. This negotiation can take place using words, elections and votes or the exchange of bullets. Either way the argument is going to take place. When all is lost the bullets will come to life.

There is still time to keep the guns silent and we have squandered much of that time in the past six months. Due to that it will take an even greater effort to communicate in peace with words to slow the anger and lower the weapons. We do know that the current tactics being used for the communication of a common goal in Libya is not effective.

At the moment we have very little time to draw up new plans. The best possible method is to increase the communication, power sharing and broaden the circle for discussion, planning and decision making. Let us not forget that Libya wants to have elections in June. The chances for a peaceful election under this current pressure is getting worse.

As I stated before the international community needs to severely boost aid in the targeted areas where violence is threatened. The focus of the aid needs to be an all out ceasefire agreement coupled with awareness/education programs, and a decentralisation of the governing power structure. Not an easy task. As crazy as this sounds, the people of Libya were calling for this very action back in December. We have wasted all that time.

As communication failures mount and groups voice their options to use violence the rhetoric also escalates. This sinking to the stupidity of violence can be averted if the will of the world is there to be wise. Too be honest though, I am not too optimistic that such wisdom will prevail.

Where to draw the line

Morals in society are portrayed in the form of laws. When ever the most controversial subjects are being discussed this question soon comes up, Where do you draw the line?

That question is often asked yet it always gets put into a societal/law realm. In realtiy this question can only be answered by the individual. For any over arching system such as government, where the line will be drawn is a question that will always change. – Here is why.

No matter what the issue of moral behaviour is being discussed, the time/era in which that debate takes place is the main contributor to the answer. In reality there was a time when government, law and order was not even a part of daily survival. Today there are a great many systems to advise us of how to behave. Laws, constitutions, religions, treaties, etc all have their impacts on how we should/do act.

Society has drawn lines on somethings for many years such as violence, theft and fraud. These three are held with contempt in just about every society we can think of. To go even further into the level of behaviour for society, we have the Declaration of Human Rights. So we have systems for the individual and for governments.

Going back the question of where to draw the line is a question that needs to be taken seriously yet at the same time every individual must take a ninety percent portion of responsibility for that answer. The government can not answer this question with out a strong and possible violent debate taking place in society. There fore the individual must answer that question themselves knowing what the current system will allow.

Debates on a great number of subjects are being held right now. There are factions that allow for exception. The laws and morals are held in respsect and truth and gauged by what we deem rational people. For the person that is not rational these morals and laws are augmented. Also we can think of the may ways a person must act in society and then go to work (professional soldier). In such circumstances the moral code and laws change.

For me the answer to, where do you draw the line, depending on what is going on around me, the line moves, at each moment that decision is to be made by me.

transformative peace

All systems of life are complex. No matter what a person does there is history, emotion, reason, impact, understanding, judgement and many other elements that will lead into future decisions and possibilities. The complexity comes down to asking, why did I act the way I did, what was my desired outcome, did I get that, how should I have acted, what should I do differently next time, etc.. Also there is an element of conscientiously and unconscientiously knowing what you are actually trying to achieve. Many have no idea what they truly want to accomplish in life, other than to have an easy life.  How do you know?

To be as honest as possible I am one that has no idea what I really want for myself. The one thing I have always strived for is to understand the world as deeply as possible. This leads me to seek out situations where everything is unknown – chaos. I seek such situations so I can help others more than anything else. As I think about that though, I question many things because I can see how I have acted in ways which have caused harm. Once that harm has been caused no amount of life will change that. That leaves me with the knowledge that I am not a peaceful person. Even though I work to bring a greater understanding of peaceful methods of managing difficulties, to decrease the amount of violence in the world and educate others on peace, I am a student as well with much to learn. Enough about me.

As society roles along we seek to understand and manage the complexity of our interactions. In this we are building our culture, our identity and the world. Most of us manage the complexity of interactions well enough that we get through life with relative ease. For others the journey is a bit more complex. This is where the larger society must assist.

As far back as life has existed for us, we have always had some sort of structure of behaviour. For any two people that interact there has to be an understanding of social agreement. Even if that agreement is to kill one another there still exist the understanding as to how each other will act. In the rational world you still may want to kill but understand that doing so is contrary to ensuring a safe and secure society. Due to this we have built systems to deal with those that do harm.  

At the outset there had to be some sort of ethical code which we all agreed upon. This code of ethics/law has evolved into the court systems many countries have today. Yet before the current system there existed a great many other systems. One such system that is being put back into use is the idea of restorative justice/transformative peace.

The current system of courts is an adversarial system mixed with retributive justice. One side works as hard as it can to destroy, defeat or prove the other side wrong/false. Once a person is found guilty they are sentenced. Off they go and that is about all the society does. The transformative system is similar in many ways but one. Transformative peace seeks to heal the entire community.  It is a co-operative system that looks to understand, learn, improve and heal as one. For example;

A person does harm in the community and is captured. That person is taken before the community.  The focus of discussion is on how society has failed in such a manner to allow a person to feel the best thing to do was to commit that harm. Transformative peace looks at the entire society and seeks to change both the person and the elements of society which contributed.

Of course there are elements of the adversarial/retributive system that address the same issues but they do so in a manner where the entire societal element remains broken. Society continues to erode in such a system because the focus is more on the individual.  The circumstances of the individual  environment is not seen as a large contributor to their character in the current system.

No matter what a person does there are circumstances of history, emotion, reason, impact, understanding, judgement and many other elements that will lead into the decisions made and possibilities seen.  Transformative peace seeks to understand the circumstances to improve the chances for everyone else to not choose harmful actions.

Decline in Syria

The world has no idea how to deal with the situation in Syria.  The Security Council is dead locked on what to do as there are two differing approaches being debated. The Security Council is so useless that they can not even convince themselves that monitors should be sent in. With each passing day more and more weapons are building up in both the military and the civilian rebel groups.

All of this was preventable with a small force of one thousand peacekeepers to be sent in last November to enforce the rule of law as stated under the current Syrian system. A complete lock down and use of small arms and light weapons needs to be enforced as the Peacekeepers patrolled with the current Syrian army. Batons, shields, water cannons, pepper spray and riot gear would be allowed only.

At each protest both the current Syrian army and the UN peacekeepers would work to control crowds and enforce the rule of law. At the same time the ruling party must obey the wishes of the people and if the people choose to hold massive strikes, rallies or protests, they must be allowed to do so.

Also foreign media should be allowed in as well to report. No embedding reporters, that is just a strong move for covering up lies.

The world has no idea how to deal with this.  That is only because the world is full of shit.

Hypocrisy

Of late, I have been reading about the causes and indicators related to why people/countries engage in war and/or peace.  There are theories that point to economics, governance, population age, gender balance, resources and religion/ideology as root causes. We do know that a mix of all these play a part. There are other elements that rarely get discussed which are; stupidity, insanity, intolerance and to put it very simple – some people are assholes. Human trafficking is one such example of such behaviour. It takes an evil piece of work to enslave another to a lifetime of hell for monetary gain. However, human trafficking is a thriving business.

In my holistic understanding of the world I know that I contribute to the continuation of such practices.  I am alive therefore everything that transpires in this world I am a part of. Moreover, I understand that I am in a relationship with everyone else that is also alive, whether I know that person or not.  We are all here at this moment and that is reality.

In that context I often think of the hell a 14 year old girl has lived in the past five years locked in a cell only to be used as a prostitute? What causes us to act so horribly to a nine year old? This is the very base of individual impact that war/hell has on the world.  Going one step up we have the gang/organized crime element.

In this network we see elements of ethics beginning. The transactions of money and “goods” takes place because of the trust each side has.  People have to work together for the operation to run, this takes a strong need for common benefit.  All the while the operation is destroying the greater peace, which in turn destroys the common benefit of the entire world. Do you see the hypocrisy?  When you live in such a world you must rule with fear because logic, justice, compassion and humanity are dead.

Going one more step higher we get to world organizations and governments.  In this step we can add religions/ideological groups.  Violence that is brought about in the name of god, country, or whatever can be a murky area.  Sometimes these groups must defend against attacks.  However, there are some wars that have raged on for centuries and no one knows exactly why, other than it began due to a fear of the other. Fear only works on the weak and even then the weak can grow tired, then realize they out-number the rulers. This scenario has been going on between Christians and Islam for two thousand years and still going.  It is taking place in Mexico with the drug wars. It is taking place now in Syria and other areas.

Every country has signed onto the Declaration of Human Rights that belong the United Nations. Still we have member nations killing another because they believe/think differently.   While they kill each other on battle fields they turn around and defend their actions in terms of self- preservation. I am sure the person that locked up the nine year girl would use the same argument.

Preventive Diplomacy

Wisdom is a resource that is often given to us in riddles and clichés.  Clichés such as “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” or “a stitch in time will save nine” have been offered as solid points to ensure that a situation is kept in check.  The result is much worse and more costly if proper care is not taken.  The same wisdom and knowledge is important to understand when managing peaceful conflict.

Peaceful conflict may seem like an oxymoron or just moronic.  However, as I have stated in past writings conflict is only the meeting and joining of two or more whatevers.  For example typing this article, my fingers come into conflict with each key, thought is conflict, child birth is a conflict as is the act that began the child, and meeting a person for the very first time is a conflict.  It just so happens that most of us are brainwashed to see conflict as a negative element. The negative focus only warns us that we must take notice of the wisdom we have to prevent situations from getting worse.

When dealing with international peace often we do focus on violence, death, struggle, injustice and rights abuses.  As we think about those situations the world had invented Peacekeepers to prevent the worsening impact of war.  Today we have come to the point where preventive diplomacy is a common element in political circles. Below are five priority areas that the current Secretary-General of the United Nations listed for strengthening the use of preventive diplomacy:

(1)early and decisive action to address emerging threats;

(2) investing in and better equipping “preventive diplomats” and their staff;

(3) predictable and timely financial support to maximize efforts on the ground and to deliver results;

(4) stronger strategic partnerships with regional and subregional organizations;

(5) greater support for national institutions and mechanisms for mediation, including civil society and, in particular, women’s and youth organizations.

For me and my work I feel that the most important element of the five is number five.  Engaging in this area will accomplish all the rest. 

Taking the holistic mindset we go from international politics to the personal relationship. On a personal front and in the lives of individuals, preventive diplomacy is a difficult ideology to explain and even harder to implement.  I have been engaged in peace for at least twenty years, I still get caught up in emotions and do stupid things that have caused a number of my own relationships to crumble.

In our personal lives preventive diplomacy is all about caring for yourself and others equally. The policy of “do no harm” is often relevant as is the Golden Rule, “treat others as you wish to be treated”. The difficult part is that we are all different in some manner.  Some of us truly believe in Machiavelli where the ends justify the means and business is conducted at all cost to win. 

What is vital though is the foundation of understanding.  We gain understanding through learning and communication.  Sometimes you know what to do but just do not have the energy or desire.  You feel that you have given enough.  Frustration sets in and then you throw all the work out and let loose.  If the other side is well trained they will realize this and just let you go off.  To be honest, I can count the number of times when I have been able to vent without fear of repercussion.  Someday I hope that balances out even.

Learn

Getting through the situations where conflict is destructive to relationships takes a great deal of effort.  Most of us have gone through a breakup and it is rarely experienced without feelings of pain and anger. Managing those feelings becomes more difficult when one side understands the need to manage while the other side does not or has no intentions of doing so. To use a popular phrase, this is when the gloves may come off.

It takes a great amount of effort to act peacefully. We are all capable of acting peacefully.  Acting peacefully means we must be willing to learn, understand and adapt. Learning is our greatest capacity. Having the will to learn includes understanding, listening and acting peacefully in the face of what is perceived as idiocy. Getting through difficult situations and actually engaging in the process of learning is another matter.  

Along side learning, the partner is commitment. Peace is a commitment to ensuring a the best possible solution for everyone.  Within that there is an understanding that you can not have all that you ask for but at least you will walk away as satisfied as possible.  Sometimes just being able to walk away is all that you can hope for.

For the most part talking is our primary form of communication.  Even though actions speak louder than words, the pen being mighter than the sword and pictures say a thousand words, speech is the common medium for sharing ideas and comunication.

In times of chaos when confusion, doubt, uncertainty and fear are all present, peace is often a dream.  At that point the smallest piece of order makes all the difference.  Just getting some order in your own mind concering what to do is the best place to start.  As you go about setting that order you set the agenda of priorities. As you engage in the activity of setting order, you are learning more about the situation.  The difficult part is to not get caught up in the frustration of chaos.  This is where commitment is most needed.

Learning has its share of set backs as well.  You may learn many ways of how not to do something, yet each step will provide information to build upon. At some point you may hit upon the fact that your vision is not shared by anyone. You may also learn that no one understand what you are talking about, which is why your vision is not shared. 

Each set back is the place where commitment and adaptation come in as you learn.

Strength to resolve matters peacefully

Having lived in many areas of chaos, I am positive that most people are peaceful. In turn, the larger part of society, is peaceful as well.  It is quite an odd situation while being a guest in a stranger’s home in a war zone.  The subject of the war is obviously discussed.  The reality soon hits you that most people have a strong understanding of peace.  However, you can hear the war rage on outside.  Then the question comes; how did this all get so ugly?

From that question alone the war will begin as the people recall the injustices set upon them.  This is called “stacking bodies”, the part where people begin to list all the injuries they have incurred.  Engaging in this activity is the method to prove how one side is the enemy.  Such tactics are rarely helpful in resolving a conflict.  Continually pointing out the injustices keeps you rooted in the mindset of revenge and being treated unfairly.  To get to the point of resolving any conflict you have to be able to do two things.

First you have to truly understand your part through accepting the others view point. You do not have to agree with their view point but there is no way you can change that view point.  Second you have to see past the committed injustices.  Again, you do not have to forget about the injustices but you do have to be able to accept that nothing can change those events.  Both of these items are simple yet they are difficult to enact.

Often we see these two items as a large part of being weak or giving in.  These views are a hindrance for most peace workers as it takes more strength, effort, intelligence and will power to engage in such a manner than it does to kill.  However there are times when killing is the only option, unless you want to die yourself.  World War Two, stopping Hitler stands as one example when killing was the only option.

Getting back to the methods needed for resolving conflict, the best tools we have is the ability to learn, educate and adapt.  We must have the capacity to understand that each and every one of us has a desire to improve upon themselves.  As we go about our lives we see others and we notice how others live.  In turn we see the parts of our own selves in these people that we wish we had.  We see in others the qualities that we know and want to improve upon.  If that person is in your daily life, the change that you wish to improve upon will become an irritant and you will develop a dislike for that person.  This is a popular theory of Carl Jung and it holds a great amount of truth.  This is on an individual level, not so sure it holds true on a societal level.  However the methods of dealing with conflict are transferable from individual to society and into international relations.

With the case of Syria, the government has given a great deal of attention to killing and very little to discussion.  We can be assured that the methods of killing will continue.  The Arab Council tried to force the discussion method by sending in Observers, that failed.  The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is again looking at intervention.  Economic Sanctions, strongly worded resolutions and a litany of press releases will most likely be the result if the UNSC takes action.  All the while the government will continue to crush its own people, at a slower pace perhaps. The killing will continue until morale improves in Syria.  It will continue at a pace slow enough for the appearance of peace and discussion.  Which brings in the world of optics, spin and bullshit.

All because some people do not have the strength to resolve matters peacefully.

Ancestral land dispute

If you read these postings you must be interested in peace and how it is managed?  When we manage things we must categorize how we are doing. As we look around the world we see countries with a great many more nations of people. Sometimes these nations of people span the existing borders of present countries.  Kurdistan people of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria are an example.  Here in Canada the Mohawk and Iroquois are nations of people that cross international borders.

In the realm of peace and conflict we can gauge how peaceful a society is in relation to how these nations of people and co-exist.  Being bound by three differing governing bodies; their own and each country they exist in is not an easy task.  For some nations such as the Kurdistan they struggle to achieve their own country.  In a perfect world such a reality would not be too difficult a task.  Take a poll of the people and adhere to that poll.  If unification is desired you begin the process of unification, easy.

Well not in the world we live in.  You see we have a deep attachment to area called territorial boundaries.  No country wants to give up any land what so ever.  Due to that there is often a great deal of killing to protect territory, even if the land being fought for is ancestral land and the people have a right to that land.  Palestine and Israel engage in one of the greatest injuries this world incurs on a daily basis involving the right to live on ancestral land.

Minority rights are also brought into this type of conflict.  Often the people that seek independence are minorities.  As we often live in the reality that might makes right, minorities are crushed.  Here in Canada there are hundreds of nations that hold ancestral rights.  We call this collective First Nations People.  What the world is seldom aware of is that many of these First Nations people live in conditions that are comparable to refugee camps.  Canada and the First Nations people must work together to solve these problems, so far both of us have failed to do so.

For some areas in the world the territory holds a great amount of wealth in the resources of minerals and petroleum.  For these resources countries will kill for.  We will kill for money.  Rights, morals, peace and the rule of law are not held in high esteem in some cases.  A person life is not worth a thing when economic development is in the equation.  The Occupy movement tried to send that message across the world, it was stopped.

The issues of ancestral land and minority rights are not easy areas for the public discussion to focus on.  Yet a peaceful society understands that unease and allows for the tensions to be addressed.  There needs to be a focus of working on such issues together, not as opponents.  All too often we see each other as opponents. 

When thinking about such issues, look at them with a unifying mind.  Use a mind that sees an improvement to what currently exists.  Think of the lives not killed, the hatred not spread, and the tension eased.  I say eased because it will never be gone.  Even a relationship with your best friend has and will go through fights.

Reality of friendship

In the realm of peace there comes a moment in the lives of people where a decision has to be made to sacrifice.  On a personal level, in the chaos of war, sacrifice maybe your life for the protection of your friends.  These sacrifices are the foundations of why soldiers become so close to each other.   To experience, know and believe that your friends will go to such lengths, as you would do the same for them, is a very humbling state of mind.  Using that understanding we can gauge the situation in which the world is in.  The question being: is there any country that would defend another to the point of certain death?

The short answer is no.  That level of friendship does not exist in the world of international politics.  Some may point to the actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those wars were not about defending a friend; they were about self-preservation at the cost of your friend.  Iraq is in a far worse state than before the war. Afghanistan is no better today compared to what life was like fifteen years ago.  To be honest, at no time were the countries involved ever in grave danger. 

Now the argument is made that soldiers died and that is an indication of our sacrifice.  I have lost many friends due to war and I can tell you that most people in Canada do not know or understand such a cost.    Our soldiers died and we honour that sacrifice because they were in harm’s way, our country was never at harm.  I recall one particular media personality saying in 2007 that Canada has not been at war since 1945. Life continued on as much in the same manner in 2011 as it did in the past forty or so years.

At this moment I can hear a litany of opposition saying, how dare you say such a thing?  Vicarious feelings and crocodile tears are what those people offer.  The hypocrisy of mentality today is solidified in the minds of people.  They will talk of dedication of friendship as a BFF which may only last a year, all the while forgetting that the last F is forever.  A small matter, perhaps yet it is a reality to how far the world has slipped when it comes to true friendship.

This self- attachment to external drama being conveyed as personal experience is bullshit.  Perhaps such a world is too stressful for those people?  Perhaps they are not capable to see the joy of having such deep understanding and commitment? Perhaps the character of today is more fragile?  Whatever it is, I hope it gets resolved so that we can regain our strong sense of what true friendship is all about.

And I do know I am as guilty of such bullshit myself.  I did not play in the World Junior Hockey tournament but I can understand the feelings of Swedish, Russian Canadian and the players for Finland.

Syrian Intervention

The revolutions that are ongoing in Syria have been deemed an internal problem by almost every world leading organization.  The UN Security Council quickly decided that Syria is experiencing a civil war.  As I have mentioned before that designation allows the Security Council the moral standpoint of non-intervention.  However, there still exists the pesky ideology of “Responsibility to Protect”.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), ideology was born in 2001.  It was the brain storm of the “soft” or “smart” power countries.  The crux of this ideology is that sovereignty can be broken if there is cause enough to do so. Criteria for breaking sovereignty would be a ruling government failing to stop a violent uprising or conducting a violent rampage upon its own people, for example Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  There are other cases that can be pointed to as well such as Cambodia and Somalia. 

There is no magical number or line in which we can point to and say this is the line for action.  The world is just not that easy or simple.  Also there are many scales of account to consider.  A civil war is by nature a challenge to the ruling government.  As brutal as it may seem such a condition of chaos must be allowed to play itself out, case in point is Ireland, Egypt, Tunisia and Georgia.  The murky cases are Libya, Kashmir Region, Sri Lanka and others.  Even the countries named here are debated whether or not they indicate civil war, terrorism, gang violence, failing states or what have you.

 With all of this judging of circumstances we have the politics of intervention.  The questions swirl around about; why should we intervene, is there capacity to intervene and who should lead the intervention.  In addition to those questions there is always predicting how long it will take to quell the violence.  I myself have come to understand that the only answer is – as long as it takes.  It may take months, years or even decades.  To be completely honest time is a reason the UN Security Council stays out.  Well not just time but the longer the war the higher the death count.  Few countries have the will to be engaged in a single combat for extended periods of time, unless it is happening in their own area. 

With the case of 5 000 dead in Syria and counting, is a significant portion of the population.  The Arab Observers have seen enough and are being recalled due to an unsafe environment.   The Arab Council had seen a need for intervention as it did with Libya.  The different between Libya and Syria is the location of Syria, the area is extremely volatile.

Now on the surface of all that is peaceful this would be the exact area where the UN Security Council should deploy.  This region holds the crucible of tension in most wars today – religion/ideology.  The only reason I can see for not having a greater presence is the hypocrisy in political will of the world leaders.  Killing 5 000 people because they asked for a different government is a crime against humanity in my view.

The debate about who fired the first shot will forever go on.  In some sense that is an important fact yet, the thousandth shot is just as important.  In such a debate this is called “stacking bodies”.  The side that has the most bodies is the side that has incurred the most harm, therefore is justified in all their actions.  In the world of peace relations, justification is not an excuse for killing.  Killing is part of the “eye for and eye” game theory.  In the end we are all dead if we follow that theory through. 

I say it is time that the people of Syria be relieved and the world step in to stop the killing.

Transitional chaos in Libya

The people of Libya have completed another phase of revolution.  The violent overthrow of the past government is complete.  Now the new government is in the dire situation of producing results demanded by the people.  The first demand is to bring law, security and predictable government more quickly.

In the pursuit of those demands the new government of Libya has asked the international community to release the financial sanctions put upon Libya.  What is surprising is that the financial sanctions are still enforce while the weapons sanctions have been lifted.  Think about that piece of idiocy for a moment.  A country that is well stocked with weapons to the point where stock piles are found daily is allowed to bring in more weapons.  Yet the money to run government, police, hospitals, schools, transit and a host of other infrastructure is still on hold.  Who makes the decision to lift the sanctions – UN Security Council.

It is even more absurd when you hear the list of priorities for the return to peace.  Number one is the locating and documenting existing weapons in Libya.  Second is the reintegration of the 75 000 fighters into society.  Third priority is to quell the rise in gang violence.   

There were enough more guns and ammunition to oust the last leader yet they need more to secure the peace?   In addition, you will not have any money to pay the police, military, doctors, teachers or government agencies to run these operations.  To be fair, there are funds made available.  It is just frustrating to see that weapon sanctions get lifted before financial sanctions. 

As the Libyan government deals with the transition, the public needs to be engaged as well.  The people need an outlet to express their experiences.  There needs to be a reintegration program on a mass scale that the entire society can go through.  In the past these have been called Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.  No matter what the name is, such programs are needed. 

The biggest test is going to be the elections, which are supposed to take place next June.  Already people are becoming agitated with the slow progress of transition.  This is to be expected as a violent revolution is a very highly intense atmosphere and peace is not.  People want change now and that is impossible.  What needs to be done is to engage with the people.  There needs to be mass discussions on the vision of Libya.

These discussions will allow the people to vent off the anger of what appears to be slow progress.  Having a person in place for the people to scream at, take that energy and produce positive feedback.  This is the realm of community development.  It may be the smallest of items that will bring the anger to a level that is acceptable.  Perhaps the local market has been destroyed or the schools or mosque or even a popular community area.  Whichever it is, a discussion with the community will provide answers. 

One thing they certainly do not need is more weapons.

Peaceful leadership

On the surface of peaceful leadership there are a few indicators that should be adhered to.  One such indicator is the will of the people to die in large numbers for change in leadership.  On a more peaceful level, the will of the people to protest in very large numbers for weeks is also an indicator that leaders need to take great awareness of.

We have to ask why the leaders strive to rewrite constitutions and understand the answer provided in as peaceful a way possible.  However, it is true that such efforts to retain power can be power grabs and nothing more.  The person doing the grabbing is blinded by their own self-importance.  On occasion that power grab is solidified when opposition becomes violent.  The violence only strengthens the case for stability in government leadership to remain in power.

Of all the peaceful protests that have resulted in a change of government, peaceful demonstrations have been the greatest weapon.  No leader can violently put down a peaceful demonstration and come out looking as though they did the right thing.  The element of citizen restraint to remain peaceful can be difficult.  Even more so when government incites the violence itself by planting forces in the crowds just to start the violence.

Peace is a difficult route.  Yet when you take examples from the most uncomplicated situations peace seems so easy.  Carolyn Handschin-Moser wrote in an article titled Dignity: Cornerstone of the Culture of Peace a perfect example.

Two women were out with their children one day.  Somehow the two boys started throwing rocks at each other in anger.  What would you think if both parents advised their kids to throw bigger rocks to solve the problem?  Shock and awe was the term used by some.  As simple as that example is, that is the exact manner in which most countries act.

With the above example, the world is witnessing some major political changes.  North Korea shares the top of that list with Russia.  How will the people and the government deal with the coming months?  In other places such as Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Yemen the transformation continues as well.

Right now in the DRC, the political leaders should begin their campaign for succession.  The current leaders should start to educate and prepare for the next election.  The preparation could involve open debates, strengthening the independent arms of government such as the electoral commission and depoliticize the court/law system and education system.  If the people are not educated and prepared we will see similar events during the next election as we witness now.

I know how simple my ideas seem to be.  However I have experienced the brutal difficulty in applying these simple ideas.  Peace, it takes a courageous heart to stand up and practice when faces with the largest rocks.

Russian Transformation

25 December 1991

 Twenty years ago Russia took a very courageous step.  That step ended the Soviet Union and began Russia.  Also it was courageous because the leaders knew they would have to deal the image of losing the cold war, even though the cold war had only a small part to do with it, the cold war was just collateral damage.As we near the date of 25 Dec 2011, we will hear a great deal of garbage about how the RUSA won the cold war.  Those that believe Russia lost the cold war are lazy in thought, poor students of history and easily swayed by propaganda.The history of Russian reform had very little to do with the cold war.  The reform of Russian politics and economics lay squarely at the feet of corruption and a very large gap between the people of Russia and the politicians that lead Russia.  The largest enemy to the Soviet Union was itself, no other entity.

The Soviet leaders of 1980-1990 knew the internal enemy was real and they could see the corruption of Soviet politics killing Russia.  Something had to be done so they came up with perestroika and glasnost.  These two programs were intended to end the corruption and lessen the gap between the people and the political leaders.  This step was courageous in every way as it promised to end a luxurious life style for political leaders and build a stronger middle class. 

The transformation is still taking place in Russia.  The Russian people are wonderful people that have been loyal to their country and the politics of communism.  They had lived the realities of corruption and in the late 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s their desire for an equal opportunity to achieve dreams took priority over status quo.  Thus the leaders of the day embarked on change unlike the world had seen in centuries. 

It is no small fact that very few countries could ever go through such a dramatic shift in economics, politics and society as peacefully as Russia has.  They have endured the stigma of losing the cold war and bending to the ideology of the RUSA.  These two stigmas are false stigmas.  The world would be better to see the history for what it is, not what one side proclaims it to be.

I truly admire the Russian people for their courage and peaceful ideology.  Their rival enemy RUSA would crumble under such a courageous step and that fact is what makes the stigma of losing all the more bogus.  However I am sure that many people will object to my view.  That is a point where I will always side with the peaceful issue of Russian transformation.  Perception and opinion be dammed, reality is that Russia had a greater enemy within than from outside

I wish the Russian people all the success as they continue on from their historically courageous step.

Na Zdorovie

Peaceful game theory

Last night I got into a discussion on what game theory is.  Now I have been a student of theories my entire life, as I see it.  All that information got snarled up before I could say a word, so it was not easy to define game theory in a flash. However I did realize that we were playing a card game so I used that as my analogy.

Game theory is the study of strategy used to get results.  It is a plan to win a chess game, to win a hockey game, an election, war or even to get a job.  The strategy you employ (whether you know your strategy or not) is the game theory you use to obtain your goal.   Everyone uses game theory.  One of the most popular theories is fight or flight.  That has been changed to fight, freeze or flight due to the fact that some people get so nervous that they can do nothing but collapse/freeze.

When we have events such as the Jasmine Revolution, we can look to see what the theory was and map it out.  Did Mohamed Bouazizi know that his actions would spark the Jasmine Revolution, would cause a number of other events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and the Occupy movement all over the world?  You would have to believe that he did not.  However his own personal actions had been rooted in the theory that if he set himself on fire the government would take notice and make changes to the current system.  That was his game theory and he was right.

Now this is a very simple example of game theory.  There are much more complex psychological strategies which have been studied.  Yet the currents and streams of thought on the subject all deal with plans that a person or group uses to achieve a goal.

Game theory is often studied along with the art of decision making and information gathering.  These three elements are all part of strategy.  You need the right information to make the best decision so that the correct strategy is used.

For example we can ask why a government would rather shoot its people than allow protesting.  The initial reason is to gain control of the populous.  Governments feel threatened by large mobs of protesters so that mob has to be put down.  That is one level.  The other level is the personal one where the person in charge, Prime Minister, President or General also feels that their life is in danger or their job.  This personal level hinges on dignity, power and self-image.  The leader feels that the people should be grateful for the life provided and a large protest is a slap in the face.  Also the leader sees a possibility that they will be ousted from power so that has to be fought.  Next there is the image that no one else has the right to hold the position that the leader now holds, it is theirs and the mob is trying to steal it.

How leaders deal with these perceptions is where game theory comes in.  They must ask themselves, what is the best method to end the protest, to retain power and to regain the admiration of the people.  Shooting them is a popular choice because it does work, for a time.  Shooting and killing is the theory employed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Burma, Columbia, Libya, DRC and the list goes on.

For peaceful examples we have Poland Solidarity Movement 1980, Czechoslovakia Velvet Revolution 1989 which lead to the peaceful 1993 seperation of the Czech Rebublic and Slovakia, and the Ukraine Orange Revolution 2004.  Each has taken place in the last few decades.  We can go further back for examples of peaceful revolutions yet these are perfect enough.  As you can see the use of peace as a strategy is a successful game theory and it often results in a stronger country.  Of the peaceful examples Ukraine had a number of setbacks, yet the initial game theory of peaceful demonstration worked. 

That is a quick summation of game theory.  My theory in the game of understanding is that by using such broad examples it is easily understood. 

Just as I was writing this I have learned that Vaclav Havel has died this morning.  He was the person put up as the leader for the Velvet Revolution. Rest in peace my friend you did a great job, we need more like you. 

Egypt, peace was taken away

Complete breakdown in peaceful transformation.  At some point there had to be an equal group of citizens and government forces that caused enough damage for the situation to deteriorate into the use violence.  At the moment we are in the status of blame.  Who did what to cause the other to use violence?

We all have a desire to find the people or person responsible for the chaos that cripples relationships.  When the relationship involves a people and those that lead, the chaos is deadly.  At some point there was a breakdown in the vision that linked the hopes of the people and the hopes of the leaders.  The massive rallies this past summer were truly inspirational.  The people had peacefully taken the leader out.  The military stood down and would not fire upon them because they knew as individuals that peace is much easier when physical violence is not a threat.  However that understanding of peace broke down.

There are a number of elements that breakdown.  The Egyptian riots have broken down due to the death of trust, the desire for power, the loss of dignity and too many visions of how Egypt should progress.   

We know that someone in a position of great responsibility/power gave orders to shoot.  Someone that provided enough push to the right people so that the military would fire upon the people.  It is odd that the military did obey the orders this time when they had stood down before.  This is the exact leadership that Egypt will have for the coming months or perhaps years. 

Wisdom tells us that all decisions ultimately come down to one person.  Someone has to make the decision to act.  Now that is the birth of conspiracy and truth finding.  In reality it may have played out that the one person was a foot soldier who panicked and fired a shot.  That first shot can quickly get lost in cacophony of the ripple effect.   I am not saying that is what happened in Egypt but it has happened.

Looking back to Yugoslavia just after Tito died; we have a map to how a country that was ruled by a dictator slowly breaks down.  In 1984 the world was invited to Sarajevo for the Winter Olympics.  Within a few short years those same stadiums were used as shelters from war.  At the time no one could tell who was working behind the stage.  Right now we know who is in charge in Egypt, but are there others working underneath as well to ensure chaos reigns for the time being?

When such a game is played the end is only a prediction.  Death brings new twists of fate.  In chaos fate swirls around picking at random.  Right now Egypt is within the grasp of chaos, much like Syria.  The beginning provided so much hope for peace.  Now we are living on the edge of complete failure for Egypt.  Why is it so difficult to not shoot, kill, destroy each other?  Why do people so easily give up on peaceful relations?  Egypt had peace within its sights and now we are further away than we were one year ago. 

Well, all we can do is work even more than we have in the past to ensure that the threat of violence is not part of the children’s day.

Iraq and Afghanistan

These two countries are in a similar state today yet in 1999 that was not the case.

Ten years ago Iraq was on its way to becoming a peaceful country.  The president was predictable and co-operative enough to provide for stability.  There was a great hope in the region that the world was comfortable with the balance of power and progression of peace.  Then along came the RUSA and bombed the hell out of that entire security net.  The world should never let this fact be idle chatter. 

Afghanistan is different than Iraq.  Ten years ago the people of Afghanistan lived under constant instability for decades.  Today the situation is the same.  The people live with daily threats of violence, political instability and the chaos of an unknown future.

These two wars are still being fought yet the main combatant is leaving because they can no longer handle the cost – mentally, physically or economically.  In short they lost all will and capacity.  In this act of leaving now the impact will not be fully felt for years.  The violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan will increase as the power vacuum take shape.

This is the reality we must prepare for.  Iraq and Afghanistan will be lawless, violent and brutal places to live.  Ten years ago we had peace within our sights in Iraq.  A stable Iraq is a dream right now as much as a stable Afghanistan is.

Where do we go from here?

That question is very difficult to answer.  I do know that we will be living with the stagnation of chaos for some time, years for sure, decades possibly.  Peace in both countries will now be in the care of a very fragile national government with the assistance of patch work NGOS.  Peace will be fought for using a chaos of organizations with no singular clear vision or plan.  The people will be torn in a great many directions as they seek certainty.  All the while the United Nations will be seized with the issues in both countries and that is where stagnation of chaos will supplant itself for years to come.

If the five members of the Security Council actually had a collective mind, one that was built on co-operation and peaceful discourse of civilian life, we would have a vastly different world.  I do think there would still be wars but not on the scale of what we have today.

Looking back in history we can equate the two situations to Vietnam 1975, Cambodia 1975, Burma 1960 and even Afghanistan in 1989.  If peace were the ultimate goal in either of those countries the world would be a vastly different place.  We can always wonder what life would be like if the policies of Soviet Russia(1978) met with the policies of the RUSA in 2002?  Both wanted the Taliban out, both wanted a peaceful national governing system, both wanted an independent Afghanistan and both wanted enough to send its own soldiers.  Peace is not always the ultimate goal, revenge and dominance usually is.

Iraq and Afghanistan are areas that produce more violence.  Soviet Russia had sought peace in Afghanistan during the 1980's only to provide a venue for a RUSA proxy war.  The result is what we have today.  The same situation in Iraq/Iran in the 1970's played out as proxy wars.  Today we should have great concern for what both Iraq and Afghanistan will progress into.  Mostly this concern is due to a very weak resolve of world leadership. 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been won by the people that are there now and will be there next year.  Sadly I must say that even my home country of Canada has lost its first war in Afghanistan due to politcal mismangement and political cowardice.

Fear, Security, Power, Rights and Dreams

When a government uses fear to control, uses threats of violence to persuade and speaks to the need for the use of physical force to defend freedom, we are all in for chaos and hell.

There is no greater threat to peace than physical violence.  There is not greater threat than an insane person with the capacity to use violence.  Right now all I can see are the ones that have the capacity to use violence are the ones that are insane.

As individuals we are all very much alike.  As we begin to form groups we lose a little bit of our commonalities.  These groups we gravitate to become insulated and the fear of the other starts.  Russia is now in the midst of such a battle, Libya has gone through such a battle and may have a further war developing due to the desires of group power struggle.  Europe is going through a very difficult time and the causes are so complex that a solution is lost due to the search for blame. 

In these situations, the words that divide us have become so vague that mistrust builds exponentially.  We are experiencing a nuclear explosion of mistrust around the world.  It is difficult to find a government that is trusted by its people.  This mistrust builds fear, which is met with a need for security, which is secured through a show of power, which is justified through our right to protect, which was developed from a dream that we should live peacefully. 

We are caught in a prisoner’s dilemma.

That is why I wrote about game theory a few days ago.  We are involved in a game of Russian roulette.  There is only one strategy in that game, be in or out.  To phrase it another way as it was once stated, with us or against us.  Such a game is pure chaos.  To be part of such a game acknowledges that you have no hope for the future; it is an all or nothing end game.  The problem we face is that the leaders are at the table playing roulette yet they are pointing the gun at the citizens.  In turn the citizens know that the gun only has a limited number of bullets so fire away.  This is the enduring spirit of the dream that peace will prevail.

We have seen peaceful demonstrations all over the world, many that were countered with bullets and all with some degree of public disdain –such as the occupy protests in Canada.  The part in which the peaceful protesters play in this game is very dangerous.  The protesters know they can be killed but they also know that a just society is possible.

In Egypt and Tunisia, ultimately the soldiers would not fire upon people.  We had seen this same peaceful resolve during the Russian August coup in 1991 and I believe that we have witnessed the same resolve in Russia during the past weeks.  Libya was not so lucky, neither is Syria, Yemen or the DRC.

We are indeed living through an interesting time period.  The political games that are now taking place have deep connections to history.  Political lines are being redrawn, new identities being forged, flawed ideology are being brought to light and discarded, hopefully the result will provide for ideology and strategy for peace.